email failure to send
Bruce in Bangkok
and they both exhibit the same problem, failure to send email through
stmp.
Actually I have installed two copies of Debian and two copy of mepis
(kernel 2..6.15-27-desktop) on two different machines, all of which
have exhibited the same problem.
E-mail clients used are Thunderbird, Icedove and Kmail, . The accounts
were both pop and imap, i.e., I configured the account, client and
server for one type of account, tested and re-configured to the other
protocol and re-tested.
All clients acted exactly the same. Receiving mail from either POP or
IMAP accounts worked perfectly but sending through smtp fails, i.e.,
the notice "contacting smtp.gmail.com" is displayed and then after
several minutes the service times out.
The mail account is gmail.com in all cases.
Finally, I have thunderbird installed on a Windows computer using
exactly the same settings and account and it works perfectly.
It appears to me that there may be a problem with port 587 (the gmail
proscribed smtp port) - at least that is all I can think of.
Can anyone suggest a solution or if not some additional checks I can
run?
Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)
Hadron
I send through gmails smtp serves using msmtp. My authentication details
are of this form:
host smtp.gmail.com
port 587
auth on
tls on
user hadro...@gmail.com
password ******
from hadro...@gmail.com
Double check your parameters in your mail client of choice.
Do you have libgnutls installed?
Moshe Goldfarb.
Maybe he has firestarter installed and it is blocking that port?
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Please Visit www.linsux.org
Bruce in Bangkok
Someone suggested trying port 25. I did and it worked.
It seems strange to me that gmail tells you to use port 587 when the
standard port works. In any event, I tried it on two machines and two
versions of debian/debian based Linux and a Windows machine and port
25 works with all of them.
Mark Madsen
>>Maybe he has firestarter installed and it is blocking that port?
>
>
> Someone suggested trying port 25. I did and it worked.
>
> It seems strange to me that gmail tells you to use port 587 when the
> standard port works. In any event, I tried it on two machines and two
> versions of debian/debian based Linux and a Windows machine and port 25
> works with all of them.
Gmail tells you to use 587 because a lot of ISPs block port 25 traffic
from exiting their network, and 587 works for nearly everyone.
Hadron
The reasons are plentiful. The main one being port 25 is often blocked
to stop spam from standard configured spam flingers.
e.g
http://www.dannyfoo.com/blog/news/tmnet-disables-port-25-to-block-email-spam/
>
> Bruce-in-Bangkok
> (correct Address is bpaige125atgmaildotcom)
FYI : Spam bots will get that address as easy as if it was in the from line.
Bruce in Bangkok
<mark.s.ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
After discovering the answer, to the more immediate question, of what
port works, I suppose my question now is why port 587 works on a
Windows machine ad doesn't work on Linux machine. I installed a dual
boot (Debian or Debian based) Linux system on two different existing
Windows machines. In both cases the Windows installation would send
mail through port 587 while the Linux installations required port 25.
All in all 5 separate systems, three of them Linux requiring port 587
and two windows that supported port 587 or 25. Baffling.
Hadron
Did you set up firestarter on Linux to ban all outgoing non standard ports?
Run it. Check the policy. Not knowing which "linux/debian like" distro
you use who knows?
You definitely plug these systems into the same routers/gateways when in
Windows or Linux mode?
Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:
I didn't set up any firewall and at this point I don't know if any
were installed by the distro. But it very well may be that you have
hit on the problem as I can think of no other reason. I did do a ps
but didn't see any reference to firestarter or guidedog however I
didn't really do a good check just ps -a | more and read it off the
screen and may have missed a line. I will do some more investigation
and if I discover the problem I will post it here as it might help
someone.
Hadron
Firestarter just sets up the rule for iptables afaik. The rules are
applied at boot through init scripts. You wont necessarily see any
firestarter process running after the boot. Run firestarter up and look
at the existing policy as I said above. Guesswork will get you nowhere.
Chris Ahlstrom
> I didn't set up any firewall and at this point I don't know if any
> were installed by the distro. But it very well may be that you have
> hit on the problem as I can think of no other reason. I did do a ps
> but didn't see any reference to firestarter or guidedog however I
> didn't really do a good check just ps -a | more and read it off the
> screen and may have missed a line. I will do some more investigation
> and if I discover the problem I will post it here as it might help
> someone.
As root, run
# iptables -L
If all you see is
Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
target prot opt source destination
or something similar then you have no firewall running.
Otherwise you can (with enough "diligence") analyze the output to see
what ports are blocked.
--
"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Bruce in Bangkok belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> I didn't set up any firewall and at this point I don't know if any
>> were installed by the distro. But it very well may be that you have
>> hit on the problem as I can think of no other reason. I did do a ps
>> but didn't see any reference to firestarter or guidedog however I
>> didn't really do a good check just ps -a | more and read it off the
>> screen and may have missed a line. I will do some more investigation
>> and if I discover the problem I will post it here as it might help
>> someone.
>
> As root, run
>
> # iptables -L
Install and run firestarter. Dont start messing around as root if you
are new to Linux. Its asking for trouble.
At the very least configure sudo and do "sudo iptables -L" inseatd.
But why I dont know. Use firestarter. You can see all events too.
>
> If all you see is
>
> Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot opt source destination
>
> Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot opt source destination
>
> Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
> target prot opt source destination
>
> or something similar then you have no firewall running.
>
> Otherwise you can (with enough "diligence") analyze the output to see
> what ports are blocked.
So why not tell him how to do that? That response to a cry for help as
as useful as "try to get some help".
Chris Ahlstrom
> Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>
>> Otherwise you can (with enough "diligence") analyze the output to see
>> what ports are blocked.
>
> So why not tell him how to do that? That response to a cry for help as
> as useful as "try to get some help".
1. Old habits die hard. I've never used a firewall configurator, GUI
or otherwise. I bought a copy of "Linux Firewalls" a long time
ago and learned from that.
2. Running iptables was a quick-and-dirty answer. By that I mean you
get quick output.
But you're correct, iptables is a bit raw. My bad.
--
Gee, I feel kind of LIGHT in the head now, knowing I can't make my
satellite dish PAYMENTS!
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> writes:
>>
>>> Otherwise you can (with enough "diligence") analyze the output to see
>>> what ports are blocked.
>>
>> So why not tell him how to do that? That response to a cry for help as
>> as useful as "try to get some help".
>
> 1. Old habits die hard. I've never used a firewall configurator, GUI
> or otherwise. I bought a copy of "Linux Firewalls" a long time
> ago and learned from that.
>
> 2. Running iptables was a quick-and-dirty answer. By that I mean you
> get quick output.
>
> But you're correct, iptables is a bit raw. My bad.
(Please dont snip the correct advice in replies. Not everyone can
reconstruct thread.)
Firestarter is a damn fine program too.
Chris Ahlstrom
> (Please dont snip the correct advice in replies. Not everyone can
> reconstruct thread.)
Why would they have to? They'll see your direct answer to their
question.
--
Whether your covers star a male or a female, I read your magazine for the
articles
-- Leo Costales, in "Outside July 2005"
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> (Please dont snip the correct advice in replies. Not everyone can
>> reconstruct thread.)
>
> Why would they have to? They'll see your direct answer to their
> question.
Because your answer did not include the text to which you were referring
and so makes no sense out of context. You snipped my reference to
firestarter while agreeing that iptables were a bit hard core for
someone not used to them.
Sy...@bbs.cyberchatnet.com
mail?